Question of the Day: Does Armed Security Makes Things Worse?

“A disgruntled ex-cop carrying a loaded gun [not shown] bypassed metal detectors at a federal building in Philadelphia and entered the FBI’s office there this week after flashing a fake police badge and his inactive ID card, according to sources and court records obtained by ABC News. The FBI ultimately took the man’s gun after becoming suspicious, but ‘he could’ve shot up half the office by that point,’ as one law enforcement expert put it after reading the court records.” I reckon security checkpoints make people complacent. Strike that . . .

They make disarmed people complacent. They figure if I’m disarmed, everyone else must be disarmed as well. Situational awareness? Gone. How hard would it be to shoot a security guard anyway? Four words: Washington Navy Yard shooting.

The best solution: security checkpoints where needed and an armed populace. Am I wrong? [h/t Pascal]

38 Responses to Question of the Day: Does Armed Security Makes Things Worse?

The Police should be, and always remain, a part of the Citizenry, protecting itself.

The more the two are separated – in reality and in perception – is the more potential there is for injustice and tyranny.

“Why do you need a military weapon?” We don’t. We need to remain armed to the same level that Police are, because the Police are supposed to be US, and we them. The Military aren’t citizens. Police are. We are.

That’s why the Anti’s ‘sheeple’ mindset that ‘only Police and Military should be armed’ is so dangerous. And why Police militarizing is so fundamentally wrong.

I often wonder if the Anti’s have any idea what they are asking for. I hope we don’t have to find out.

I think you meant to say the Military is separate from our “civil society”. I never lost my citizenship at any time in my military career, nor did I encounter any foreign mercenary troops hired by our Government.

Did I lose my citizenship when I joined the Army? No… This mindset that it’s one faction/ race/ ethnicity against the other is what is tearing our society down. Personal responsibility is what’s needed, each individual is accountable for their actions and not swept under the rug for political correctness.

And, I disagree that we don’t need access to “military” weapons…the whole point of the second amendment was for citizens to be able to defend themselves against an army wielded by an out of control government

Anyone with the means and motivation to construct an ICBM, or something similar, isn’t going to be deterred by some law. After all, the ATF hasn’t done jack squat about North Korea or Iran’s WMDs. Or closer to home, all the King’s laws, horses and G-Men weren’t able to prevent the OKC and WTC bombings, nor 9-11.

So aside from the fact that private citizens at the time of the Constitutional Convention legally owned cannon and even cannon-outfitted ships, aka “weapons of war”, and so their modern counterparts should be allowed as well, barring private ownership of them is moot on several levels.

Well, I’d probably actually trust you with an Abrams, tfunk… and I’d sure love one in my backyard myself. Not sure I’d prefer my ex wife have one though honestly though, or that crazy dude Larry down the road. I personally can’t afford one anyway (let alone the fuel), so the issue then becomes – who gets to own them and who doesn’t.

I hear ya…and there are def people I’d prefer to not have guns based on interactions with them.

But fortunately I am not the arbiter of who should have what…and no one else in a free society should be, either. If you are not incarcerated through decision by a jury of your peers, you should be free to buy what you can afford to.

When you get into the area of tanks and artillery the price of these toys puts them out of the average citizens reach. Only the wealthy and the powerful have them and if we the citizens need to use them against an oppressive gov we run the very real risk of coming under the sway of the rich and powerful toy owners.

We the citizens bleed, suffer and die only to replace one set of oppressors with another.

Figure a workable way around that glitch and I’ll support your right to keep and bear an Abrams or a 155.

(yes, of course meant ‘civilians’) You get my point…the Military also not supposed to be used against civilian population, are wholly different from Police (and national guard, civil militias). Sheesh like writing a legal writ sometimes and not a comment on a blog lol

The issue should be that members of the military be very clear about the oath they take. That is supposed to make them responsible citizens and members of the military who are taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and not loyal to “the government” or the President, and not willing to act against the citizenry if illegally ordered to do so.

I absolutely believe that private ownership of military arms should be illegal. I had to buy my own ARs, why should other people get them from the military? Otherwise, if not who paid for them, what exactly defines a “military weapon”?

You’re not wrong. And it’s not hard to shoot a security guard. Heck they even have unarmed “security” guards in local grocery stores. Well it guess it makes people “feel” safer…and the sheep need to feel safe.

Being employed at said “local grocery store” (union), the security was armed for a great deal of time. They recently, took away those arms. The best part, was the news plastering it all over the TV. The surrounding area is targeted for robbery all the time. Just a matter of time until my local is hit.

Armed security mostly does nothing one way or the other, which is not a bad thing at all. Once in a blue moon, armed security saves the day, which is also not a bad thing at all. And sometimes, armed security proves to be totally helpless, which is a very bad thing indeed.

So no, armed security does not make things worse, but at the same time I do not wish to outsource my own safety. YMMV.

I don’t think security itself is bad, but rather gun free zones.
As stated, a crazy person could easily attack the security guards and continue their rampage. Having as many people armed as possible to stop an attacker should be the goal, not restricting defenses to the entrance of the building.

Since every badge toting felon is encouraged to carry beyond the security point, I’ve never felt anything but unsafe and pissed off when required to go to a Constitution-free zone. (and before the baseless ‘cop-hater’ accusations start flying, I did not say or imply that all badge toters are felons, just that every one who is a felon is officially encouraged to carry in gov’t mandated ‘weapons free’ areas)

Pat — you are beginning to babel. I assume your frequent use of “interrupted” (3 times) in your reply was intended as “interpreted”. If not, please explain.
I said your (limited) etymology of one word in the ADJECTIVAL PHRASE was an irrelevant attempt to rationalize your error in seeking to find meaning in only one word, and not the phrase, and what that PHRASE meant to the Founders.
I did not deny the etymology of the word “regulate” (I am glad to see you have belatedly mentioned — without explanation — the Latin root of regulate. That root is ” Rex, regis”, [king] from which we also get the word “regal”). I stress again to you that the ADJECTIVAL PHRASE “well regulated” or its hyphenated compound form “well-regulated”, must be viewed in its totality.
If you were to apply your “logic” to an examination of what “the meaning SHOULD BE” of “lightning bug”,
you could possibly determine that it was a “computer programming flaw caused by a discharge of atmospheric static electricity”.
In response to your question of “Why the existence of the ‘militia clause’ at all?”
Briefly — It was common practice to give such explanatory reasons in many other constitutions adopted by several of the newly independent American states The Founders gave a reason why the nascent constitutional Federal Government would NOT WANT to infringe upon the stated, recognized and guaranteed “right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. The militia was the primary defense force of the new country, (standing armies were ‘a threat to Liberty’) and might well be the only thing that stood between the officials of that Federal Government and a prison cell, or the gallows.